Rafal: I went around in circles on this for a long time. In the end I went back to my standard MGIV/Dektol/Selenium workflow for neutral tones, which I admit was what I expected to happen, rather than working against a warm toned paper to achieve a neutral tone. I tried all sorts of things with 130 and some other developers, with Selenium toning, contacted wedges and even did colour densitometry with the results. In the end I always come back to Dektol. I still have some SE6 I will try at some point. But I doubt it will do anything special. I didn't find Ansco 130 gave me better results than Dektol - in fact in most cases there was no difference within the margins of experimental error. So why would I bother scratch-mixing and having to worry about the Glycin they ship me?

One avenue I'd like to look into is using a warm-tone developer to shift MGIV to warm-neutral. I think that might be of more value to me.

If you are interested in cooling MGWT, you might want to look up Brian Steinberger's APUG thread on this. Ultimately he got what he was looking for using Moersch SE7 (I think it's 7) with MGWT and Selenium. The tone was what I'd call "steely". He posted some test prints of wedges in the thread.

Oh dear—I was hoping you had a more positive experience. I am not too willing to go back to MGIV for everything I do, due to the optical brighteners just making the highlights too blue in UV-richer lighting, for my liking. So, perhaps, I am not looking for something that is as cold, and maybe the cooling down of MGWT will work for me. I have studied Brian Steinberger's and Evan Clarke's posts carefully, and I noticed their Moersch SE6 results. I wonder if that developer uses one of the lesser-known restrainers that Ryuji wrote about.

You also touch on another important issue, that is if sticking with 130 makes sense, considering you feel you did not get better results than with Dektol. I greatly respect your critical thinking and your clear ability to focus on the facts and not only on the feelings. When I switched to 130, from Dektol, 4 years ago, it did give me better results, with MGIV, which was my main paper at the time. I found the tone was more neutral, less greenish, before Se, and I found it richer, and more pleasant to my eye, after Se. Also, I found it easier to achieve desired contrast with 130 than with Dektol, my prints got a sparkle, however this could have been due to anything else that I changed in my process at that time. Since then, I used 130 exclusively, not going back to Dektol, as I also liked the keeping properties of stock and working solutions (can't be one-shot where I am due to chemical waste restrictions). Now you are making me think that I should try Dektol again, as perhaps I've learned enough to print better since those days, and maybe 130 is no longer as necessary for me as it was then. On the other hand, I'd rather tweak it to cool it, than to change it altogether, so as not to introduce too much change at this point. Decisions...

Well, I'm only one guy reporting my own results. I'm not suggesting anything, so don't change anything you're doing based on what I wrote. My conclusion was simply that no variations on 130 had a significant enough cooling effect on MGWT to render it neutral. As an aside, it also annoyed me there were inconsistencies between the various 130 kits I got from Formulary. Sometimes I'd mix it and the stock solution was clear, a few times I mixed it and it went to a pronounced brown colour during mixing. Whether or not this affected performance is unclear, but I don't like uncertainty and variations beyond my control.

I'm sure there are many people out there who would argue 130 is better/different than Dektol (although most of them would have no objective data, evidence etc ) and it of course depends on the paper. My workflow has always included weak Selenium toning (with all the neutral papers I've used over the years), so I always measured print colour, d-max etc after toning.

One important correction to my previous post: SE6 (blue-black) is the developer Brian tested on MGWT, and SE3 ("cold") is the one I have which I have not yet tried on any warm papers. In my previous post I wrote that SE7 was the blue-black developer and SE6 was the "cold" developer. Sorry for the confusion.

Last edited by Michael R 1974; 02-28-2013 at 08:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Well, I'm only one guy reporting my own results. I'm not suggesting anything, so don't change anything you're doing based on what I wrote. My conclusion was simply that no variations on 130 had a significant enough cooling effect on MGWT to render it neutral.

Thanks, Michael, I find your explanation very helpful. Did you find that the effect was noticeable, at all, and was it pleasant? I suppose I will have to try something, to put this one to bed, so I am wondering how to set my expectations. Do you remember what proportion of KBr/BTA in 130 made the most difference, to you, in terms of the tone cooling/neutralising effect?

My experience of mixing PF130 is that I always get a coloured stock solution, of a light orange hue. I no longer mix it from kits, but from individual ingredients, using PF glycin. Colour of the liquid is still consistent, and so seems its performance, but I will keep my eye on that, too.

I should have also added, earlier, that I like the surface of MGWT very much, and I find it easier to dry mountin addition to my preference for the lower/lack of UV-activated brighteners. It has a nice tonality, although I am happy with MGIV for that, too. It just needs a slightly different printing approach.